NEW YORK (AP) — As the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office reopens its years-long investigation into Donald Trump, a new book by the former prosecutor who once led the probe details how close the former president was to indicted — and cries of friction with the new DA who put the plan in place ice.
Mark Pomerantz wrote in “The People vs. Donald Trump: The Inside Account” that District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., authorized in December 2021 to seek Trump’s indictment. After examining various aspects of Trump’s life and business, including money paid on his behalf, Pomerantz wrote that he agreed with the case in which there were allegations that Trump falsified business records by inflating the value of assets in financial statements provided to creditors.
Vance left office in a few weeks, but expressed confidence that his successor, Alvin Bragg, would agree to the assessment and look into the case, Pomerantz wrote. But Bragg and his team had other ideas, citing fears about the strength of the evidence, the credibility of key witnesses and ultimately deciding not to proceed — at least not at the pace Pomerantz and prosecutor Carey Dunne wanted. Stagnation forced both of them out of office.
“Once again, Donald Trump has been able to dance among the rain of responsibility,” Pomerantz writes in the book, which will be published Tuesday by Simon & Schuster.
The Associated Press and other news outlets received copies of the book on Friday. Pomerantz is scheduled to appear on “60 Minutes” on Sunday and Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show on Monday as part of a promotional blitz.
The 304-page volume weaves Pomerantz’s behind-the-scenes account of the spirited battle to fill Trump with anecdotes from his decades-long career as a mafia prosecutor and white-collar litigator, at times drawing parallels between the two. The book could also stir drama over Pomerantz’s split from Bragg over the direction of the case, which became public last year when his resignation letter appeared in The New York Times.
Pomerantz described the dispute not as a clash, a drag, but as a legitimate difference of opinion formed by Zoom calls and long phone conversations. During the session, Pomerantz wrote that he and Dunne would detail the pros and cons of Trump’s impeachment, while Bragg or a member of his team would step back with questions and concerns.
At first, Pomerantz wrote, Bragg seemed overwhelmed by other matters — managing the DA’s massive office and dealing with blowback from his approach to prosecuting certain crimes — and paid little attention to the Trump case. He wrote that Bragg showed up at the initial meeting where he presented the case and that Bragg usually looked at the phone. The DA was more vigilant in the next session, Pomerantz said.
At one point, he wrote, Bragg said he “couldn’t see a world” in which he would indict Trump and called Trump’s former lawyer and longtime fixer Michael Cohen as a witness. Cohen, who managed hush-money payments to women on behalf of Trump in 2016 and claimed to have intimate knowledge of financial dealings, was convicted in a federal case of lying to Congress and has a propensity to inflate the importance of the investigation, prosecutors worry.
Aside from some vague emails he wrote criticizing Bragg’s handling of the case, Pomerantz said his relationship with the DA was not angry or violent — “there was no yelling or screaming,” he wrote of their last conversation in February 2022 — and he concluded by defending Bragg against those who suggested he had an ulterior motive to avoid a potential indictment.
“The suggestion that Alvin acted in bad faith is absurd, and I believe there will be no facts to support it,” Pomerantz wrote. “Those who accuse Alvin of corruption or bribery have no idea how this prosecutor’s decision was made or bloodthirsty to act against Trump.”
Bragg’s office sought last month to halt publication of the book, raising concerns in a letter to Pomerantz and Simon & Schuster that the account could “prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation.” In response, Pomerantz said he was following his legal and ethical obligations and, in his opinion, no books were harmful to the investigation. Simon & Schuster said it was with Pomerantz and would release the book as scheduled.
In a statement Friday, Bragg said he had not read the book, and “would not comment on the ongoing investigation because of the potential harm to the case.” He defended his decision not to charge Trump and slammed Pomerantz for withdrawing while the matter was still pending.
“After reviewing all the evidence from Mr. Pomerantz’s investigation, I reached the same conclusion as several senior prosecutors involved in the case, as well as the one I brought: more work is needed. In other words, Mr. Pomerantz’s plane is not ready to take off,” Bragg said. .” Our skilled and professional legal team continues to follow the facts of this case wherever they are, without fear or favour. Mr. Pomerantz decided to step down a year ago and sign a book deal.
The New York State District Attorney’s Association also expressed concern, writing in a statement on Friday that “the former prosecutor speaking during an ongoing criminal investigation, of which he was a part, is unfortunate and unprecedented.”
Trump also sought to block the book from appearing, threatening legal action against Pomerantz and Simon & Schuster for what he said were “defamatory statements” and “baseless falsehoods” about alleged criminal conduct. Trump has not considered the threat.
A message seeking comment was left Friday for Trump’s attorney.
Pomerantz joined the DA’s office in 2021 as a special assistant district attorney to lead the Trump investigation. He wrote that early in his involvement he considered charging Trump and his company under the state’s version of federal racketeering laws, given the various tax, fraud and other potential crimes he was investigating.
Pomerantz was Trump’s cunning, charisma and ability to “stay one step ahead of the law” for the last Gambino crime family boss John Gotti, whose son, John A. Gotti, was prosecuted when he was an assistant US attorney.
When he arrived at the DA’s office, Pomerantz wrote, the investigation was so broad “it seemed unfocused and diffuse.” Prosecutors are looking into a variety of matters related to Trump beyond the issue of money payments and values, including suspicions that he defrauded the federal government with deals on a Washington, DC building he owned as a Trump hotel.
In 2021, Pomerantz’s team charged Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and its longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, with tax fraud and other crimes related to lucrative fringe benefits for company executives, such as Manhattan apartment rentals and luxury car payments. Weisselberg pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five months in prison. The Trump Organization was convicted in December and ordered to pay a $1.6 million fine.
Pomerantz described the money laundering, the original impetus for the investigation and the area now being examined by Bragg’s team, as perhaps the most difficult and legitimate of the potential cases against Trump. He wrote that in the event that Trump falsified business records by listing Cohen’s reimbursements as legal fees, he could only be charged with a misdemeanor under New York law — unless prosecutors can prove he falsified records to hide another crime.
Vance left the quiet corner in 2019, turning his investigative focus to other matters, but Pomerantz said he returned when he joined the office in January 2021, looking for ways to make more serious crime allegations. They weigh in on whether Trump can be charged with money laundering and explore if Stormy Daniels asked for money to keep her quiet, so she sold it.
After Bragg became DA, Pomerantz said he returned to the money issue — which he said was known around the office as a “zombie” case — as he considered ways to expand the case of falsified business records related to Trump’s financial statements. But this is also not the beginning.
“Over the months that I and others have worked on this case, we have developed convincing evidence that Donald Trump has committed a serious crime,” Pomerantz wrote. “When we put the facts together, many believe we have enough evidence to convict them.”
Although he was not sure if there would be a conviction, he wrote, “I feel that I owe it to the public to have the case tried. While I think I will win, I also think that losing would be better than not trying.”